RE: intelligent design & Intelligent Design (was Re: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 20:49:30 EST

It seems self evident that, if intelligence is required to understand something, then intelligence was used to create that something. I cannot say it more succinctly than that. Clearly, the creating intelligence must be far superior than that required to understand it. This ought to apply to everything not only the natural sciences.

Moorad

From: Gregory Arago
Sent: Tue 11/22/2005 6:17 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; ASA list
Subject: RE: intelligent design & Intelligent Design (was Re: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row)

First, I agree with George Murphy's distinction regarding 2 senses of 'intelligent design'. A pity that Denyse O'Leary wasn't willing to regard the distinction as important for her journalism, blogging and book writing.

Second, in regard to Moorad's question (below), I wonder if intelligence (or Intelligence) can be restricted solely to natural science, and thus to nature? That is, can it not be applied to society and culture as well? Is there an intelligence (or Intelligence) behind society? Is there an intelligence (or Intelligence) behind culture?

These questions surely would apply if the 'paradigm' of ID that the IDM is promoting were to be widely embraced in the way that they wish for it. For example, Michael Behe claims that IDM-ID "has implications for virtually all humane studies." (1999) Please don't call me theologically or philosophically backwards for scoffing at such a notion made by a natural scientist regarding non-natural scientific disciplines. Nonetheless, perhaps there is an intelligence (Intelligence) behind humane things in the same way A. Moorad may wish to conclude there is an intelligence behind nature.

Third, a question: are all process theologians by definition also evolutionists, that is, evolution being considered as a 'process of change over time'? Ian Barbour, for example, is certainly a qualified evolutionist from what I've read.

G. Arago

"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
 Can one similarly conclude from the experimental data and the fact that human intelligence is required to create the mathematical models to explain the data, that there is intelligence behind Nature?
Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:12 PM

2 few points relative to this a.m.'s posts:
1) No one should to talk about "intelligent design" without knowing, and clearly indicating that knowledge in discussion, the difference between 2 senses of "intelligent design."
    a) intelligent design (normally without caps) as a theological
affirmation that a rational God has purposes for creation. In this sense
all Christians (& many others) believe in id.
    b) Intelligent Design (often capitalized) as a claim that divine
purpose can be discerned (at least partly) from scientific observation, & that the idea of design should be made part of scientific ttheories.
Virtually all who say b will also say a but the reverse is not the case.
...
BTW, I am not a process theologian, though I don't view it as negatively as some here.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Tue Nov 22 20:50:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 20:50:29 EST